Epipen Case

The current debate over the Mylan Company’s near monopoly of the epinephrine market through its EpiPen shows what can happen without monopoly regulation. While the cost to produce an Epipen is around $30, the price to the consumer is around $300 each. The economic implications for a family that needs to keep the device on hand to save a life can be excessively high, the emotional results of not having one when you need one are debilitating. This monopoly is further enhanced by state-enforced regulations requiring that schools keep EpiPens in stock and the, so-called, EpiPen law enacted in 2013, which leave little incentive for other pharmaceutical companies to develop their own technology for fast-acting emergency devices. (Bartolone, 2016) Breaking Mylan’s monopoly will not only lead to new product development but lower prices for consumers for a life-saving delivery

The EpiPen device automatically injects a drug called epinephrine, which reverses potentially deadly allergic reactions. It is the only device of its kind available in the United States. Millions depend on carrying the device at all times. For decades the EpiPen was available at a low cost until the Mylan Company purchased it in 2007. Since then, the price has risen over 400% creating a public backlash of media reports, social media petitions, and politician’s calling out Mylan executives to explain the reason for the price raise. Lack of compassion and appearance of greed has tarnished the public image of the company. Mylan has begun looking for ways of rebuilding their image by releasing compensation to the public in the form of generic cheaper EpiPens and payment assistance to eligible patients, but it might be too little too late in this current ongoing communication crisis event.

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful and greedy industries in our country, with a goal to make as large a profit as possible, at the expense of the sick.

Recently, there had been a controversy over the rise in pharmaceutical costs involving the EpiPen in the United States. The EpiPen, also known as adrenaline/epinephrine, is a widely used injection that is used to treat allergic reactions. This generic drug has been available for many years. The EpiPen controversy is a prime example of how monopoly

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Generally consumers have very little bargaining power as medication is prescribed. Apart from US where there is pricing flexibility, governments in other markets enjoy substantial pricing leverage.

D. If you can only get the brand name drug, and you are allergic to the inactive ingredients in it, then you are out of luck.

* Monopoly Power. Pharmacists often face questions from patients regarding how prices of medications are determined and why, in some cases, they are so expensive. Unlike markets for other goods, in the pharmaceutical marketplace there are a limited number of manufacturers and the medication being sold are not identical, but rather are differentiated. There is a guarantee via patent protection that no potential competitor may manufacture an identical drug and sell it at a lower price in the short run. As a result, the branded manufacturer is able to make profits. Since there is only one seller, the monopolist determines the price of the medicine. This establishes the monopolist as a price setter, permitting prices above the perfectly competitive price by controlling the quantity of medication produced in the marketplace. This is in stark contrast to being a price taker, and accepting a price established within a perfectly competitive marketplace. The end result is that prices are higher under these market conditions than they would be in a purely competitive marketplace.

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

Pfizer is the largest American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It competes with Merck and Glaxo, and markets such well-known medications as Celebrex and Viagra. However, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has undergone changes in recent years with significant consolidation taking place and with increased scrutiny regarding the ways in which drugs are developed, tested and marketed. In addition, recent controversies have erupted regarding Merck's drug Vioxx, and Pfizer has been the target of unwanted publicity regarding its painkiller Celebrex. This research considers the strategic position of Pfizer, including its strengths and weaknesses as well

In pharmaceutical industry, the end user of the product (patient) is different from the influencer (doctor) influencing his decisions. This is a unique feature of pharmaceutical industry. Consumer/Patient behavior in India suggests that he will buy whatever medicine is prescribed by his doctor or physician. Therefore we can say that doctors influence the buying power of buyers. In branded market like India patients/pharmacists cannot usually substitute

What is the proper role of the following groups in addressing these dilemmas: National governments, Branded pharmaceutical firms, and Generic manufacturers?

Companies-producers of “blockbusters” are in an advantageous position because drugs that fall into this category provide faster and deeper penetration into the market due to their excellent properties and patent protection. Launch of a “blockbuster” guarantees high sales to the company. However, those companies face a number of difficulties associated with the entry of generics after the expiration of patent protection. First, sales of the original product plunge. Consequently, companies have to reduce their prices to compete.

While recent advancements in modern medicine have turned it into a field of competition between generic and name-brand drugs, these drugs show very slight differences in ability while they have a large difference in price. The FDA is in charge of overseeing the creation of these generic and name brand drugs. Too much diversity in their results is unacceptable to FDA so they keep a close watch on the makeup and effectiveness of the drugs and how they impact the human body. Along with the differences in their chemical makeups shown by the results of each drug there are the social issues that accompany the name-brand and marketed drugs vs. the generic drugs which are never advertised and only sold. The idea that and almost identical product